Re: Should 'git status' understand a .git containing "gitdir: dir"?

[Eric Raible <raible@nextest.com>]

On 6/30/2011 8:49 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Eric Raible <raible@nextest.com> writes:
> 
>> The following sequence sets up a trivial repo that uses "gitdir:":
>>
>> $ git init gitdir-test
>> $ cd gitdir-test
>> $ mv .git real-git-dir
>> $ echo "gitdir: real-git-dir" > .git
>> $ git status
>>
>> Fine so far.  But git-status shows that "real-git-dir" is untracked:
>>
>> $ git status -sb
>> ## Initial commit on master
>> ?? real-git-dir/
>>
>> Which strikes one as a bit inconsistent (since other pars of git-status
>> knows to look in real-git-dir to find the index).
>>
>> Sorry - no time to investigate.
> 
> You could even have a real git dir of some completely unrelated repository
> in your working tree, it will get reported as untracked, and you would
> probably not want to track its contents, either (or you might want to if
> you are trying to be funny, I dunno).
> 
> So I do not see there is anything to investigate. What you observed looks
> perfectly expected to me, except for the "mv .git real-git-dir" bit that
> makes a situation that confuses yourself (but not git).
> .

The fact that the repo is stored in .git is an implementation detail -
and one which git-status knows about (in the normal case).

In the gidir: case one part of git status understands the details
(after all - it reads real-git-dir/index) while another part doesn't
(after all - it show the actual repo as a normal directory).

Sure, git-real-dir could be added to git-real-dir/info/exclude.
But by that logic we could insist on adding .git to .git/info/exclude.

The argument about an unrelated repo in the working tree is irrelevant -
.git wouldn't point to it, so there's nothings special about it.

But it's obviously not a big deal either way and I'm gonna drop it.